5 ms·

A good way to accomplish this (not mentioned in the article) would be to build more housing close to Mountain View's campus. Office space has been outstripping

A good way to accomplish this (not mentioned in the article) would be to build more housing close to Mountain View's campus. Office space has been outstripping housing growth in Mountain View for a very long time. See for example https://www.jwz.org/blog/2015/01/stop-being-bullied-lets-sue-mountain-view/ https://www.jwz.org/blog/2015/01/stop-being-bullied-lets-sue....

DannyBee 11y ago
They tried, multiple times, and were explicitly rebuked http://www.mv-voice.com/print/story/2012/07/13/google-housing-axed-in-citys-general-plan http://www.mv-voice.com/print/story/2012/07/13/google-housin... http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/26/technology/google-plans-new-headquarters-and-a-city-fears-being-overrun.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/26/technology/google-plans-ne... etc It comes up every few years.
- gozo 11y ago
  While I think the situation is ridiculous, I also can't help thinking that if you're one of the most successful companies in the world and you can't get this done. It's either not that great of priority for you or you're doing something wrong.
  - TulliusCicero 11y ago
    Nope, it's something Google would really love to see. You have to remember that as the Goliath in the room, Google has to be somewhat careful about how hard they try to persuade local governments, as many residents already dislike how quickly they've grown and how that's contributed to rents going up and traffic getting worse. And Google has made a bunch of improvements themselves, like, I believe, the buffered bike lanes on Shorebird and the multi-use path that extends west from Shorebird. But they can't just do whatever they want, no matter how rich they are. Just look at how their plans for development in North Bayshore got shot down by the city.
    - gozo 11y ago
      I was more thinking of compromising. Making deals is, at least to some extent, what business is about and I don't see the differences as insurmountable. Maybe Google don't play nice with others, but there's firms that do that too in exchange for money.
      - TulliusCicero 11y ago
        From what I can tell, Google plays as nice as humanly possible, there were just a lot of NIMBYs in the Mountain View city council until recently who hated the idea of getting housing in that area. But the NIMBYs lost badly last fall, and now the city actually is moving forward with housing in North Bayshore. I just wish they were moving forward with more (I think right now the plan is like ~5,000 units). See: http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2015/04/15/heres-where-mountain-view-might-put-all-its-north.html http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2015/04/15/heres-whe...
        gozo 11y ago
        My observation would be that relationships are not Google strong suit. They don't really do customers or enterprise. Support has been lacking for a long time. They are not even that good at managing their brand considering their popularity. Maybe they will get their way eventually, but I think people are going to be disappointing in a decade or so. It's supposedly the technology capital of the world and deserves a greater outcome then what a few companies can push through a dysfunctional process.
    - brlewis 11y ago
      as many residents already dislike...rents going up and traffic getting worse Those sound like good reasons for local residents to support more nearby housing.
      - TulliusCicero 11y ago
        Yup, and thankfully the outgoing NIMBY city council members got replaced last fall with ones that have a more urbanist leaning, and they're moving ahead of housing in North Bayshore now. I just wish it was more than ~5,000 units; that's not very much compared to how many people work there.
  - sliverstorm 11y ago
    ... or an example of the strength of NIMBYism and the empowerment of the vocal few in California politics to roadblock progress.
    - DannyBee 11y ago
      I'm going to have to ask you to file an environmental impact statement and a report with the coastal commission of california before i'll give you the permits to comment further on this thread :)
  - plonh 11y ago
    When you can't persuade a small town city council, it is because you aren't doing enough bribery. Maybe that is wrong.
erjiang 11y ago
Mountain View and most of the other SV cities want to maintain their quiet suburban image, nevermind that they are home to some of the biggest tech companies in the world. Until residents start voting the other way, housing will continue to be in very short supply.
- trhway 11y ago
  until people learn how and, more importantly, willing to build good urban space, as a resident of MV (or of SV in general as i lived in other near by cities before) i am even against current 3 story "barracks" being actively built all over the place. For example, one can build 30 story (plus 10 underground for parking/storage/etc...) towers with enough green space around it instead of covering all available space with the 3 story-s.
  - natrius 11y ago
    Towers surrounded by green space has been tried, with mostly negative results. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Corbusier#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Corbusier#Criticism Good urban space is mostly about how nice it feels to be on a street. You want a comfortable amount of walking space, destinations that are close together, and that's pretty much it. Surrounding buildings with parks makes walking harder and less pleasant. There's probably enough demand for taller buildings, but it's illegal.
    - trhway 11y ago
      >Towers surrounded by green space has been tried, with mostly negative results. on 2D surface the density can be done only by growing into the 3rd dimension. The only issue is how to do it. The ratio between height, footprint and total capacity i think reaches its worst value in the current style of development in the Valley (as a result of developers ripping best value in profit possible inside the municipally imposed limits) >Surrounding buildings with parks makes walking harder and less pleasant. as if walking on a concrete sidewalk between 3-story wall and the traffic lanes in the open under CA midday Sun beats it :)
scythe 11y ago
The problem isn't Mountain View alone, it's balkanization. You can't just build housing in Mountain View unless you really believe "Alphabet" will be there forever -- that's different from believing that tech will last a long time, because one company does not an industry make. It makes more sense to build 2000 units in each of Mountain View, Palo Alto, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, Redwood City, San Mateo, East Palo Alto, Cupertino, San Jose, and Los Altos, than to force any one of those to build 20000 units. But coordinating this is easier said than done, and it took a long time to type, at that. Annexing the suburbs has been mentioned as a possibility for SF, but the real balkanization is worse further south, and it would actually be easier for San Jose to annex most of Silicon Valley -- for one thing, it doesn't cross county lines -- than for San Francisco to reach all the way down the peninsula. The end result is the same, if SJ city authorities recognize both the problem and the opportunity it represents. But hopefully some useful public transit pops up in the area, too.
- knorby 11y ago
  Facebook took over Sun's old campus, and I imagine some corp would take over Google's campus if they left. Ultimately office space is office space, and planning for a mass regional exodus seems unwarranted. Most or all of the cities mentioned can accommodate new housing developments as easily as office parks now...it seems like a reasonable means of allocation. I don't even think crazy annexation schemes are needed...what would really change the region is a unified school system.
- beatpanda 11y ago
  San Jose tried this in the 60s. Most of the little towns surrounding San Jose used to be San Jose. They were rebuked over and over again as town re-incorporated. I think you'd at least have to wait longer before trying that again.

DannyBee 11y ago

They tried, multiple times, and were explicitly rebuked http://www.mv-voice.com/print/story/2012/07/13/google-housing-axed-in-citys-general-plan http://www.mv-voice.com/print/story/2012/07/13/google-housin... http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/26/technology/google-plans-new-headquarters-and-a-city-fears-being-overrun.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/26/technology/google-plans-ne... etc It comes up every few years.

gozo 11y ago
While I think the situation is ridiculous, I also can't help thinking that if you're one of the most successful companies in the world and you can't get this done. It's either not that great of priority for you or you're doing something wrong.
- TulliusCicero 11y ago
  Nope, it's something Google would really love to see. You have to remember that as the Goliath in the room, Google has to be somewhat careful about how hard they try to persuade local governments, as many residents already dislike how quickly they've grown and how that's contributed to rents going up and traffic getting worse. And Google has made a bunch of improvements themselves, like, I believe, the buffered bike lanes on Shorebird and the multi-use path that extends west from Shorebird. But they can't just do whatever they want, no matter how rich they are. Just look at how their plans for development in North Bayshore got shot down by the city.
  - gozo 11y ago
    I was more thinking of compromising. Making deals is, at least to some extent, what business is about and I don't see the differences as insurmountable. Maybe Google don't play nice with others, but there's firms that do that too in exchange for money.
    - TulliusCicero 11y ago
      From what I can tell, Google plays as nice as humanly possible, there were just a lot of NIMBYs in the Mountain View city council until recently who hated the idea of getting housing in that area. But the NIMBYs lost badly last fall, and now the city actually is moving forward with housing in North Bayshore. I just wish they were moving forward with more (I think right now the plan is like ~5,000 units). See: http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2015/04/15/heres-where-mountain-view-might-put-all-its-north.html http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2015/04/15/heres-whe...
      - gozo 11y ago
        My observation would be that relationships are not Google strong suit. They don't really do customers or enterprise. Support has been lacking for a long time. They are not even that good at managing their brand considering their popularity. Maybe they will get their way eventually, but I think people are going to be disappointing in a decade or so. It's supposedly the technology capital of the world and deserves a greater outcome then what a few companies can push through a dysfunctional process.
  - brlewis 11y ago
    as many residents already dislike...rents going up and traffic getting worse Those sound like good reasons for local residents to support more nearby housing.
    - TulliusCicero 11y ago
      Yup, and thankfully the outgoing NIMBY city council members got replaced last fall with ones that have a more urbanist leaning, and they're moving ahead of housing in North Bayshore now. I just wish it was more than ~5,000 units; that's not very much compared to how many people work there.
- sliverstorm 11y ago
  ... or an example of the strength of NIMBYism and the empowerment of the vocal few in California politics to roadblock progress.
  - DannyBee 11y ago
    I'm going to have to ask you to file an environmental impact statement and a report with the coastal commission of california before i'll give you the permits to comment further on this thread :)
- plonh 11y ago
  When you can't persuade a small town city council, it is because you aren't doing enough bribery. Maybe that is wrong.

erjiang 11y ago

Mountain View and most of the other SV cities want to maintain their quiet suburban image, nevermind that they are home to some of the biggest tech companies in the world. Until residents start voting the other way, housing will continue to be in very short supply.

trhway 11y ago
until people learn how and, more importantly, willing to build good urban space, as a resident of MV (or of SV in general as i lived in other near by cities before) i am even against current 3 story "barracks" being actively built all over the place. For example, one can build 30 story (plus 10 underground for parking/storage/etc...) towers with enough green space around it instead of covering all available space with the 3 story-s.
- natrius 11y ago
  Towers surrounded by green space has been tried, with mostly negative results. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Corbusier#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Corbusier#Criticism Good urban space is mostly about how nice it feels to be on a street. You want a comfortable amount of walking space, destinations that are close together, and that's pretty much it. Surrounding buildings with parks makes walking harder and less pleasant. There's probably enough demand for taller buildings, but it's illegal.
  - trhway 11y ago
    >Towers surrounded by green space has been tried, with mostly negative results. on 2D surface the density can be done only by growing into the 3rd dimension. The only issue is how to do it. The ratio between height, footprint and total capacity i think reaches its worst value in the current style of development in the Valley (as a result of developers ripping best value in profit possible inside the municipally imposed limits) >Surrounding buildings with parks makes walking harder and less pleasant. as if walking on a concrete sidewalk between 3-story wall and the traffic lanes in the open under CA midday Sun beats it :)

scythe 11y ago

The problem isn't Mountain View alone, it's balkanization. You can't just build housing in Mountain View unless you really believe "Alphabet" will be there forever -- that's different from believing that tech will last a long time, because one company does not an industry make. It makes more sense to build 2000 units in each of Mountain View, Palo Alto, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, Redwood City, San Mateo, East Palo Alto, Cupertino, San Jose, and Los Altos, than to force any one of those to build 20000 units. But coordinating this is easier said than done, and it took a long time to type, at that. Annexing the suburbs has been mentioned as a possibility for SF, but the real balkanization is worse further south, and it would actually be easier for San Jose to annex most of Silicon Valley -- for one thing, it doesn't cross county lines -- than for San Francisco to reach all the way down the peninsula. The end result is the same, if SJ city authorities recognize both the problem and the opportunity it represents. But hopefully some useful public transit pops up in the area, too.

knorby 11y ago
Facebook took over Sun's old campus, and I imagine some corp would take over Google's campus if they left. Ultimately office space is office space, and planning for a mass regional exodus seems unwarranted. Most or all of the cities mentioned can accommodate new housing developments as easily as office parks now...it seems like a reasonable means of allocation. I don't even think crazy annexation schemes are needed...what would really change the region is a unified school system.
beatpanda 11y ago
San Jose tried this in the 60s. Most of the little towns surrounding San Jose used to be San Jose. They were rebuked over and over again as town re-incorporated. I think you'd at least have to wait longer before trying that again.